I apologize if this thread existed already. I tried to search but could not find anything that compared the two that was close to recent....

If you wanted a good type of multipurpose lens for a D700 that covered many areas, would you pick the 24-120 over the 28-300 (aside from the range alone)? I have read many reviews, some liking more than the other, but I would rather hear from actual users.

Anyone had experience with using both of them? If so, what are your thoughts? Are there many differences?

I cannot comment on the 28-300, but I do have a 24-120 on a D90. Very nice lens. A perfect walk around, and not too heavy. Very sharp, I have found it is one of my most useful lenses. I chose this instead of the 24-70 f/2.8 which lacks the VR. I also have the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. Very nice lens and I would think this is very close to the 28-300mm in many respects. The real question is always how much money we are planning on spending. If you need the extra long range of the 300, for cars or motorcycles, like I shoot, well maybe the 300 is the way to go. But if you have more bucks, the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is great because you can stick on the 1.4X or 2X teleconverter and have a 280 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 which is very sharp.

So, the decision is about $$$ it looks like. Good luck and nice to have you on the NRF. Lots of good folks here.